May I ask for a link where you are basing this information? Andrew is a grown man who seems to have no problem making deals that will not bear the scrutiny of daylight. Why are you placing the blame on Sarah? She did not sell the house to the Khazakis

I got my info from the Mail, Telegraph and the BBC. I didn't blame Sarah, please read my post again before making accusations.

The Japanese catastrophe was in the papers earlier in the week. Now that the nuclear situation looks more hopeful, that subject was dropped. Then the big news was the invasion of Libya by the coalition. Now it's back to Andrew again. In my opinion, there's no scandal here, and I don't think that Andrew personally profited from the negotiations that he allegedly carried out on behalf of the government. I don't see what Rowland has to do with the trip to Libya except that he travelled with Andrew; but he covered his own costs. It's a way of working the whole story about Sarah's debt and "help" she's received. That could indeed be "shady", but it has nothing to do with Libya. That the UK's government saw fit to trade a terrorist for an oil contract could leave a bad taste in a person's mouth; but in this case I think that Andrew was simply doing his job.

"During his talks with Gaddafi, Prince Andrew is believed to have discussed the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Megrahi was released from prison in Scotland in 2009 amid reports that Britain had won a lucrative oil deal for BP from Gaddafi in return."

According to this article she states that thanks to P. Andrew she is now debt free. I can't help but contrast that with her vanity fair article a couple of years ago (the one w/ the dominatrix photo) where she stated she helped P. Andrew out financially.

The current issue of Vanity Fair has a very unflattering portrait of Prince Andrew, with side comments about Sarah, equalling unflattering. It pre-dates by a week the fall of Prince Andrew from his position as Trade Envoy. (The link below is not to the full article - just a snippet).

The current issue of Vanity Fair has a very unflattering portrait of Prince Andrew, with side comments about Sarah, equalling unflattering. It pre-dates by a week the fall of Prince Andrew from his position as Trade Envoy. (The link below is not to the full article - just a snippet).

Unfortunately there is much information given that is false - so I don't know if you can really trust the rest...

I have enormous respect for the journalism work of Vanity Fair - yet I have to say I was surprised at the tone of this article. It has a really nasty edge - I wondered about it. Now you say there are inaccuracies - what are they? Can you say?

I have enormous respect for the journalism work of Vanity Fair - yet I have to say I was surprised at the tone of this article. It has a really nasty edge - I wondered about it. Now you say there are inaccuracies - what are they? Can you say?

- Sarah is said to have received nothing after her divorce while Diana went away with millions.
- Camilla is said to be really wanting to be the first "commoner" queen and Charles indulges her - I only heard information to the contrary, that Charles is keen for her to be queen, but it doesn't matter to her.
- If the "Way Ahead group" only dealt with "such paramount issues as primogeniture, the feudal rule by which the Crown passes to the eldest male heir.", there wouldn't be much to deal with, as the line is fixed and potential changes can only come from the government. Ok, there will be Royal input, but I guess the position of the RF is fixed, there is no need to discuss that two times a year. Plus they write that last Christmas was the first time Prince William was invited to the sessions of the group: then when was Harry invited? Earlier than William?
- "What’s more, Philip tried to bully Andrew into kicking Fergie out of her residence at Royal Lodge—a demand that placed Andrew in the awkward position of having to choose between his overbearing father and his over-the-top ex-wife. He chose her." Is that so? I really doubt that info!
- The timing of Andrew's investiture as GCVO was different - it was published officially before the story about Epstein broke, just the actual investiture ceremony was afterwards. Edward received his promotion around the same time, so it is not proven that the queen wanted Andrew to be untouchable under her protection as the article claimed. And the fact that Edward received the same honour at around the same time shows that it was not using her "most potent instrument" to protect her "favorite son".
- "When Beatrice was 17, she fell in love with a disreputable American by the name of Paolo Liuzzo. (snip paragraph) Beatrice was heartbroken when the relationship ended and she had to return to Goldsmiths, which is part of the University of London.". Beatrice was not at Goldsmiths, when she split with that guy. all the time she studied at Goldsmiths, she had Dave Clark for her boyfriend.

- Sarah is said to have received nothing after her divorce while Diana went away with millions.
- Camilla is said to be really wanting to be the first "commoner" queen and Charles indulges her - I only heard information to the contrary, that Charles is keen for her to be queen, but it doesn't matter to her.
- If the "Way Ahead group" only dealt with "such paramount issues as primogeniture, the feudal rule by which the Crown passes to the eldest male heir.", there wouldn't be much to deal with, as the line is fixed and potential changes can only come from the government. Ok, there will be Royal input, but I guess the position of the RF is fixed, there is no need to discuss that two times a year. Plus they write that last Christmas was the first time Prince William was invited to the sessions of the group: then when was Harry invited? Earlier than William?
- "What’s more, Philip tried to bully Andrew into kicking Fergie out of her residence at Royal Lodge—a demand that placed Andrew in the awkward position of having to choose between his overbearing father and his over-the-top ex-wife. He chose her." Is that so? I really doubt that info!
- The timing of Andrew's investiture as GCVO was different - it was published officially before the story about Epstein broke, just the actual investiture ceremony was afterwards. Edward received his promotion around the same time, so it is not proven that the queen wanted Andrew to be untouchable under her protection as the article claimed. And the fact that Edward received the same honour at around the same time shows that it was not using her "most potent instrument" to protect her "favorite son".
- "When Beatrice was 17, she fell in love with a disreputable American by the name of Paolo Liuzzo. (snip paragraph) Beatrice was heartbroken when the relationship ended and she had to return to Goldsmiths, which is part of the University of London.". Beatrice was not at Goldsmiths, when she split with that guy. all the time she studied at Goldsmiths, she had Dave Clark for her boyfriend.

etc. See what I mean?

Very sloppy. Agree. What could they be thinking? Or they don't have good fact checking on things Royal? Went to press with the story precipitously? It almost sounds like a gratuitous trashing and I would not have thought that of Vanity Fair.

And there's even an 'etc' in there? Hmmm.....what more is askew?

Question: Is William (and Harry) members of the 'Way Ahead Group'? Is there such a group? Being here on TRF has made me sensitive to the partisanship around Charles and William - did you get the impression from the little bit written about William and the WAG, that it was being suggested that there is polarization between Charles and William? I had the impression that it was being suggested that William was in active discord with his father.

From the article: Last Christmas she reportedly invited Prince William to sit in on his first meeting of the Way Ahead Group, preparing him for the day he becomes King.

Like his mother, Princess Diana, William has a knack for connecting with ordinary people, a quality his father conspicuously lacks. “William is a key player in the future monarchy,” said a source who has studied the matter closely. “He’s going to help direct how things will happen.

“What’s far more likely to happen,” said the royal-watcher Robert Jobson, “is that there will be a seamless change of power in the monarchy, a gradual shift away from the Queen. Charles’s influence will gain, as will William’s. During the last years of Elizabeth’s reign, Charles and William will be like shadow kings.”

What do you make of this slant in the article? It startled me.

Also, I was given to understand that Sarah refused money from the Queen at her divorce - is that so? Or did she have millions like Diana?

Until every case with Epstein is done it's not going to be over. There are still lawsuits pending and we don't now what Andrew was doing during his trips. All it takes is one woman to mention that the Prince was there when something inappropriate happened (Not necessarily seeing but just there) and Andrew will be right back in the heat of things.

I do wonder if the FBI would question him. I get the feeling that the British government, more than likely urged by the crown, would ask them to back off unless they got something that looked seriously damaging.